Arthur Murdock v. Martin Thorne , 2016 Me. LEXIS 41 ( 2016 )

MAINE SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT Reporter of Decisions
Decision: 2016 ME 41
Docket: Cum-15-207
Argued: February 11, 2016
Decided: March 10, 2016
Panel: SAUFLEY, C.J., and ALEXANDER, MEAD, GORMAN, JABAR, HJELM, and
HUMPHREY, JJ.
ARTHUR MURDOCK
v.
MARTIN THORNE et al.
PER CURIAM
[¶1] Arthur Murdock appeals, and the Maine Department of Public Safety
(DPS) cross-appeals, from summary judgments entered by the Superior Court
(Cumberland County, Warren, J.) in favor of Martin Thorne on Murdock’s
complaint for negligence, and in favor of DPS on Murdock’s complaint for
uninsured motorist coverage. Because we conclude that the court improvidently
granted Murdock’s motion to enter final judgments on those claims pursuant to
M.R. Civ. P. 54(b)(1), we dismiss the appeals.
I. BACKGROUND
[¶2] The summary judgment record contains the following facts drawn from
the parties’ statements of material fact that were admitted by the opposing party.
See Brady v. Cumberland Cty., 2015 ME 143, ¶ 2, 126 A.3d 1145;
2
M.R. Civ. P. 56(h). On January 26, 2010, Murdock, then a lieutenant with the
Maine State Police, stopped his cruiser in a westbound turn lane of Skyview Drive
in Portland so that he could turn left and enter the State Police barracks driveway
on the other side of the road. Martin Thorne was driving eastbound on Skyview in
the innermost of two eastbound lanes. As Thorne approached a line of traffic that
was stopped at a red light, he stopped short of a vehicle in front of him so as to
leave a gap, made eye contact with Murdock, gestured with his finger to indicate
that Murdock should wait a moment, checked his side mirror, and then waved
Murdock through, indicating that Murdock could turn in front of him.
[¶3] As he turned in front of Thorne, Murdock “inched forward” to check
for oncoming traffic in the far eastbound lane. Seeing none, and relying on his
own observation of traffic, not on Thorne’s signal, he began to cross. Thorne, who
had rechecked his side mirror and now saw an approaching vehicle, honked his
horn and began waving his arms at Murdock, but Murdock did not see or hear the
warning. As Murdock drove across the travel lane, his cruiser was struck by a
vehicle driven by Angelo Castigliola III, who was traveling at or below the 25 mph
speed limit. Murdock suffered serious injuries and retired from the State Police
later that year. As of September 1, 2014, he had received substantial workers’
compensation benefits from the State, and was receiving ongoing weekly benefits.
3
[¶4] In December 2013, Murdock filed a four-count complaint in the
Superior Court, alleging negligence against Castigliola and Thorne, and seeking
uninsured motorist coverage from DPS and from Patrons Oxford Insurance
Company, his personal insurance carrier. In September 2014, both DPS and
Thorne moved for summary judgment.1 The court granted both motions by order
dated January 22, 2015. On Murdock’s motion, the court certified its order as a
final judgment pursuant to M.R. Civ. P. 54(b)(1). Murdock appealed and DPS
cross-appealed.
II. DISCUSSION
[¶5] When multiple claims are at issue in a case, M.R. Civ. P. 54(b)(1)
permits a court to enter a final judgment on selected claims “only upon an express
determination that there is no just reason for delay.” M.R. Civ. P. 54(b)(1);
McClare v. Rocha, 2014 ME 4, ¶ 8, 86 A.3d 22. The trial court made the required
determination in this case. When a partial final judgment is appealed, “[w]e
review . . . for an abuse of discretion but do not simply accept the trial court’s
determination; there must be a valid justification for the determination.” McClare,
2014 ME 4, ¶ 8, 86 A.3d 22. “[W]e will then decide based on several factors
whether to reach the merits of the appeal.” Id.
1
Castigliola also moved for summary judgment; that motion was denied.
4
[¶6] One of the factors that we consider is “[t]he possibility that the need for
review may be mooted by future developments in the trial court.” Id. ¶ 8 n.1. At
oral argument, Murdock acknowledged two circumstances that inform our
decision. First, addressing a central dispute of fact that remains unresolved in the
trial court, Murdock agreed that “the entire case would go away” if he failed to
prove at trial that Castigliola was negligent. Second, he agreed that if we affirm
the summary judgments now before us, that would not end the case in the trial
court.
[¶7] Murdock thus asks us to render what is essentially an advisory opinion
on important issues of first impression, one of which affects the public fisc.2
Although that course of action would simplify this case for these parties, it is not
the prudent course for an appellate court to take, and we decline to do so. If,
following a trial, claims survive to judgment and that judgment is appealed, we
will then have a fully-developed record on which to consider, in a comprehensive
manner, all of the issues that require our decision.
2
We have not decided (1) whether a driver who stops and signals another driver to turn and proceed
across a multi-lane road assumes a duty of care for purposes of a negligence claim; or (2) whether the
State is required, pursuant to 24-A M.R.S. § 2902(1) (2015), to provide uninsured motorist coverage as
part of its self-insurance program in light of 5 M.R.S. § 1728-A(1)(H) (2015), which provides that “[i]n
performing the functions authorized by this chapter, the [self-insurance] funds, the Commissioner of
Administrative and Financial Services and the director [of the Bureau of General Services] are not subject
to the provisions of Title 24-A.”
5
The entry is:
Appeals dismissed.
On the briefs:
Philip P. Mancini, Esq., and Michael T. Devine, Esq.,
Drummond & Drummond, LLP, Portland, for appellant Arthur
Murdock
Elizabeth A. Germani, Esq., Germani Martemucci & Hill,
Portland, for appellee Martin Thorne
Janet T. Mills, Attorney General, and Thomas A. Knowlton,
Asst. Atty. Gen., Office of the Attorney General, Augusta, for
appellee Department of Public Safety
At oral argument:
Philip P. Mancini, Esq., for appellant Arthur Murdock
Elizabeth A. Germani, Esq., for appellee Martin Thorne
Thomas A. Knowlton, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee
Department of Public Safety
Cumberland County Superior Court docket number CV-2013-534
FOR CLERK REFERENCE ONLY